No Unauthorized Construction Should Exist; Authorities Bound To Initiate Actions On Complaint From Any Person: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court observed that no unauthorized construction should be allowed to remain and the authorities are bound to initiate actions on receipt of information or complaint from any person.

The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition preferred by a company against the Order of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) vide proceedings for removal of the unauthorized structure put up by it.

A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar remarked, “No unauthorized construction shall be allowed to remain and the authorities are bound to initiate appropriate actions on receipt of information or complaint from any person. Since the law has been declared by the Supreme Court, no leniency or misplaced sympathy can be shown by the Courts merely on the ground that the person violated has invested some amount.”

Advocate Ashok Menon appeared for the Petitioner while Advocates (Standing Counsel) A. Arun Babu and R. Sivakumar appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

Originally, planning permission was granted to the Petitioner construction company for construction of basement floor, ground floor, mezzanine floor plus three floors commercial building. However, the Petitioner constructed basement floor, ground floor plus eight floors plus 9th floor (part) and 10th floor (part) buildings. The unauthorized commercial structures were erected by the Petitioner in a busy commercial area in Chennai city. Applications after application were filed before the Member Secretary, CMDA, seeking regularisation of the unauthorized construction of huge extent by the Petitioner. However, the same were not considered, nor the unauthorised constructions were regularised by the CMDA on the ground that such regularisation is not feasible under law. The developer constructed the commercial buildings in violation of the approved plan in respect of 8th floors plus 9th floor (part) and 10th floor (part).

The additional floors were completed in all respects and soon after the completion of unauthorised constructions, application seeking regularisation was filed which was rejected vide a letter. The second regularisation application was submitted by the Petitioner and the earlier decision taken by the CMDA rejecting the regularisation request was reiterated in the letter. Since both the applications were rejected, locking and sealing and demolition notice was issued vide a letter followed by locking and sealing and demolition cum de occupation notice. Consequently, the unauthorised floors and the unauthorised ground floor structure on setback space on western side were locked and sealed. The Petitioner then filed an Appeal under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the Government but the same was rejected.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, elucidated, “The builders and contractors are emboldened to commit such illegalities at the cost of the people with the fond hope that they can escape from the clutches of proceedings or by submitting regularization application, they can avoid any demolition of the unauthorized construction.”

The Court added that the builders and contractors are emboldened because of large scale collusion on the part of the officials of CMDA, Corporation and other competent authorities under various enactments for their omissions, commissions, inactions, and lapses.

“In the present case, the initial application filed by the petitioner seeking regularization was rejected in the year 2007 and the second application was rejected in the year 2014. Both the rejection orders remain unchallenged. Thereafter, the appeal filed under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act was also rejected by the Government. The subsequent action initiated by the CMDA for removal of unauthorized structures dated 28.11.2023 alone is under challenge in the present writ proceedings”, it further noted.

The Court said that the unauthorized portions are locked and sealed by the CMDA and therefore, there is no impediment for the CMDA to proceed with the demolition of the unauthorized constructions, by retaining the approved portion of the building as per the building plan approval granted.

“Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to demolish the unauthorized portions of the construction as per the impugned order dated 28.11.2023, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”, it directed.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:426)

Click here to read/download the Judgment